1. On average, we only have about 434µs of total data for any one 7 hour run.
2. This is a simple circuit operating in a complex mode. We have absolutely no way of knowing precisely what the current is at any given node at any given time within the circuit.
3. All power calculations on the Data are dependent on point #2.
4. Actual accurate integration of the complex waveforms documented is beyond the scope of this endeavor (unless we have some enterprising young minds willing to process it), so only approximate values are possible.
5. Collapsing magnetic fields like those produced by Glen's inductive resistor will definitely induce voltage in all inductive circuit components, including the leads of the carbon 'shunt' resistor and MOSFET
6. When a resistor exhibits a voltage across its leads and no current is flowing, it can be viewed as a single cell battery
7. A 100W resistor, will dissipate 100W of energy continuously without damage. It is unlikely that a single 100W 400ns spike every 3µs (~13% duty cycle) would heat it up all that much. And that would need the the current were 100% in phase (which we are certain is is not).
8. Power measurements relating to heat must include a time dimension. It may be better to convert the power per time to Joules and relate the Joules to heat.
9. When calculating power dissipation for a MOSFET, the instantaneous resistance (or specifically, the transconductance) of the device must be known.

All that being said, this research is ongoing and necessitates further data when the tools become available again. I would also like to add, that a human element exists in the data collection. This will need to be removed for rock solid numbers necessary for most scientists to accept. The data demonstrates a relatively wide range of output averages for this circuit, both positive and negative. The deviation needs to be identified and documented.

So, while the initial observations show a strong inclination toward a negative mode of operation, we cannot deny that the battery energy is still being expended. I believe that when Glen gets a few extra moments in his already over packed schedule, he may post the results of an endurance run that was done just as a matter of curiosity, but possibly valuable as well.

I would also like to address the matter of over unity, perpetual 'motion', and coefficient of performance. First, over unity (OU) is simply a term which indicates that we can get more out of something than we put in. It is always matter of reference. If I put a 1 gram coin into a vending machine and get a 10gram product, its OU by weight - if that is my only reference. When we attempt to close a system to factor all possibilities, we learn that OU simply does not exist in reality, and we have to include more than our universe to accurately close the system. Therefore, we approach the OU term with very relative measure applicable to the system and the desired results. We generally do not apply the term 'perpetual motion' to charge related phenomena, otherwise all electrons orbiting a nucleus could be viewed as perpetual motion, as can be the planets etc. So, we often will see the term 'self running' instead. Taking the output of a system and re-routing it back to the input in an effort to 'self run' would be an obvious test of getting more out than we put in, OU. However, the failure of such a device would not be conclusive evidence that OU was absent. For example, it was suggested that a battery charger be used as the feedback device. One must consider the efficiency of the charger, which is often less than 60%. If the circuit under test were at 17% gain and the feedback were at 40% loss it is easy to see it could not self run. Finally, I would like to address the difference between over unity and a COP > 1. Like a heat pump running at 350% efficiency, the RA circuit may run at 1700% efficiency. This does not mean that it is an over unity device. It only means that it is able to produce heat much more effectively than a standard electric heater (100%). So trying to take the heat it produces and push it back into the circuit as a self runner would be an achievement in itself as most thermoelectric generators are not very efficient (the reverse process needed for the feedback).

So, if we are seeing negative power dissipation (i.e. cooling from a thermal perspective) then we can almost be certain we have interfaced with a power conversion process external to our circuit. Like a magnetic field perhaps.